This article was downloaded by: [188.77.50.87]On: 26 March 2014, At: 13:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Curriculum JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcjo20

Beyond SMART? A new framework forgoal settingTrevor Day a & Paul Tosey ba Learning and Teaching Enhancement Office , University of Bath ,Bath, UKb Centre for Management Learning and Development , Universityof Surrey , Guildford, UKPublished online: 12 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Trevor Day & Paul Tosey (2011) Beyond SMART? A new framework for goalsetting, The Curriculum Journal, 22:4, 515-534, DOI: 10.1080/09585176.2011.627213

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2011.627213

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Beyond SMART? A new framework for goal setting

Trevor Daya* and Paul Toseyb

aLearning and Teaching Enhancement Office, University of Bath, Bath, UK; bCentre forManagement Learning and Development, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

This article extends currently reported theory and practice in the useof learning goals or targets with students in secondary and furthereducation. Goal-setting and action-planning constructs are employedin personal development plans (PDPs) and personal learning plans(PLPs) and are advocated as practice within the English nationalpolicy agenda with its focus on personalisation. The article argues thatframeworks widely used for goal setting and action planning by UKeducational practitioners, in particular SMART targets or goals, haveyet to be rigorously examined in the light of relevant theory andpractice. Doing so is important given contemporary emphasis on thedimensions of the learner experience regarded by ‘learning to learn’practitioners as underpinning effective learning in the modernclassroom. The article draws from social cognitive theory andachievement goal theory, including Zimmerman’s criteria for appro-priate goals, to suggest an alternative framework for goal or targetsetting – ‘well-formed outcomes’, a construct from the field of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). In comparison with SMART targets,the authors argue that well-formed outcomes offer a more rigorousand holistic approach, by taking greater account of the learner’sidentity, affective dimensions (feelings and emotions), social relationsand values, as well as encouraging mental rehearsal.

Keywords: action planning; goals; mental rehearsal; neuro-linguisticprogramming (NLP); outcomes; targets

Introduction

In the secondary and 16–19 education sectors in England and Wales someform of action planning, in which a teacher or tutor sits down with astudent and discusses their progress and negotiates learning targets withplans to achieve them, has emerged to become a recognisable feature ofteaching practice within the last 25 years. Action planning has its recentorigins in initiatives such as records of achievement (Broadfoot 1988) and

*Corresponding author. Email: t.day@bath.ac.uk

The Curriculum Journal

Vol. 22, No. 4, December 2011, 515–534

ISSN 0958-5176 print/ISSN 1469-3704 online

� 2011 British Curriculum Foundation

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2011.627213

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI) (Technical andVocational Education Initiative 1991; Merson 1992). It also features as astrong component in careers guidance (Watts 1992, 1993). It has evolvedto find modern expression in a variety of forms, including personaldevelopment planning (PDP) (Bullock and Jamieson 1995, 1998) andpersonal learning planning (PLP) (Bullock and Wikeley 1999, 2004).

Action planning can occur at pivotal decision-making stages in astudent’s career, such as when making choices about subject options orother forms of progression, or it can be practised at regular intervalsacross the academic year, conducted by a teacher or personal tutor, withthe emphasis on the student’s ongoing learning. The interaction can beformal or informal. Typically the process involves a review of thestudent’s current situation, dialogue and negotiation between student andtutor/teacher, and recording of decisions and intentions made, which ishopefully followed by the student’s action towards meeting such goals ortargets in the weeks and months that follow. At the next meeting, thecycle of review, dialogue and negotiation, recording and action isrepeated. All such approaches share in common a dialogue betweenstudent and tutor/teacher that seeks to clarify the student’s choices,identify goals or targets, and plan appropriate action to meet them.

As to how effective action-planning dialogues might be in influencing astudent’s learning, this depends on the quality of the relationship betweenstaff member and student, the nature of the contract between them, andthe manner in which the dialogue is conducted, which is stronglydependent on the skills and enthusiasm of the staff member (Whiteside1994; Bullock and Jamieson 1998; Bullock and Wikeley 2004). There isevidence that more measurable effects of action planning are apparent inthose in most need of support (Bullock et al. 1996) and that gender mayinfluence the nature of the response to action planning, at least with 13–14-year-olds (Bullock and Wikeley 1999). Bullock and Wikeley highlighta wide range of possible responses to such interventions:

At its most effective, it is a process that uses the student-centred dialoguewith tutors to promote learning, self-awareness and self-confidence,opportunity awareness and the development of planning skills. At itsminimal level, it is an interview that helps individuals select appropriateoptions at a particular learning or career stage. At its worst, it can be anintrusion into private matters. (Bullock and Wikeley 1999, 19)

The focus of this article is on frameworks used to facilitate theinteraction between student and tutor/teacher in an action-planningdialogue, especially as it relates to the identification and negotiation oflearning goals or targets. In this article, ‘goals’ and ‘targets’ are usedsynonymously, although some practitioners refer to targets as short-termaims and goals as longer-term ones (e.g. Jones and Duckett 2004). The

516 T. Day and P. Tosey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

Oxford English Dictionary (1989, 2010) defines a goal as: ‘The object towhich effort or ambition is directed; the destination of a (more or lesslaborious) journey. . . . An end or result towards which behaviour isconsciously or unconsciously directed.’ A goal thus embodies twofeatures: a description of an intended future state and action towardsachieving that future state.

Goal setting often employs the SMART framework (or similarheuristic), in which a goal is commonly designed to be specific,measurable, achievable/agreed-upon, realistic and time-based (Doran1981; Fielding 1999; Wade 2009). The construct of SMART goals, targetsor objectives appears to have originated in business and managementcontexts (Doran 1981; Locke and Latham 2002), having evolved from the‘management by objectives’ movement (Drucker 1954; Raia 1965). Thefirst published use of a SMART framework is often attributed to Doran(1981), a brief article written by a management consultant for a businessaudience, which justifies the heuristic in pragmatic terms withoutreference to earlier literature. The SMART framework has become apopular means of focusing on performance at institutional, departmental,and individual staff and student levels in the English educational system(Fielding 1999). Yet there has been comparatively little systematicconsideration of the validity or conceptual robustness of the SMARTframework (e.g. Wade 2009).

When employed with student learners, SMART goals commonly drawupon established principles of good practice from goal-setting theory; thatis, according to Locke and Latham (2002), that goals are specific,challenging but realistic, proximal in time, and engage the learner’scommitment. For goals to be realisable, learners greatly benefit fromformative feedback that informs them of progress towards meeting theirgoal. Nevertheless, there is a danger that SMART targets can be employedin an instrumental manner, and divorced from students’ active engage-ment and reflection on their practice. Encouraging reflection and offeringfeedback are considered highly beneficial in order consciously to engagestudents in their learning (Bullock and Wikeley 2004, 2008). Also highlyrelevant is the growing recognition among advocates of various constructsof ‘learning to learn’ (Claxton 1999, 2006; Watkins et al. 2001; James et al.2006; Watkins and Lodge 2007) of the importance of the affective domain(feelings and emotions) in learning. It is recognised that a student’s feelingsand emotions may help or hinder their learning, may promote or obstructtheir attention and their motivation to learn, and may also form part of thefabric of a student’s learning in terms of how, and how effectively, theyencode experience (e.g. reviews in Claxton 1999, 2005; Blakemore andFrith 2005; Posner and Rothbart 2007; McNeil 2009).

Critical review of SMART and similar frameworks is needed giventhat students’ target setting is highlighted as recommended practice

The Curriculum Journal 517

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

within ‘personalisation’ frameworks of the English and Welsh nationalpolicy agenda: for example, ‘Pupils have regular opportunities to discusstheir progress. Teachers actively involve pupils in setting and reviewingtheir progress towards their targets’ (Department for Children, Schoolsand Families 2008, 16).

Goal setting: theory and practice

Goal setting has become an active field of research in educationalpsychology, in relation to both social cognitive theory and self-regulation(Schunk 1989; Zimmerman 2008) and achievement goal theory (e.g.Pintrich 2000; McGregor and Elliot 2002; Wolters 2004; Anderman andWolters 2006; Murayama and Elliot 2009).

Zimmerman (2008) reviewed evidence in support of the educationalvalue of goal setting in enhancing motivation and academic achievement.Appropriately set goals direct students’ attention to completing tasks, canmotivate them to greater effort and persistence in performing tasks thatmove them towards achieving goals, and can harness helpful affectiveresponses. As for what might be ‘appropriate’ goals, Zimmerman (2008)draws upon evidence from the testing of goal-setting theory (Locke andLatham 2002) and social cognitive theory (Bandura 1986) to offer eightcriteria: goal specificity; their proximity in time; hierarchically organised;congruence between goals of self and others; degree of difficulty; self-generated; level of conscious awareness; and whether goals are processorientated or performance orientated.

Schunk’s early work (1989) established that broad goals, such as ‘Doyour best’, have poor reliability in enhancing academic attainment incomparison to more specific goals, such as ‘I intend to raise my test scoresin this subject by at least one grade by the end of the term.’ This differencearises, at least in part, because progress towards more specific goals iseasier to verify (Bandura 1997). This first criterion is closely related to thesecond, temporal proximity. Other factors aside, it is more effective tomonitor progress towards a goal, and gain feedback and act on it, bydoing so at short time intervals rather than long. Ideally, goals are‘nested’ hierarchically (Zimmerman 2008) so that smaller goals, e.g.gaining better scores in weekly tests, support the achievement of a largergoal, e.g. raising the score in the end-of-term test by a grade. It helps if anindividual’s goals are aligned with those of significant others in theirlives – perhaps peers or family members – or at least are not activelychallenged by them.

A fifth criterion is the degree of challenge of the goal. Zimmerman(2008) reviews evidence which suggests that goals that are attainable butchallenging best encourage educational achievement. As for Zimmer-man’s sixth criterion (goals being self-generated), according to Deci and

518 T. Day and P. Tosey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory, goals that are self-generated arelikely to engender greater commitment compared to goals that are set byothers. This appears to apply providing that the self-set goals are realistic.However, in the classroom context, learners are likely to need guidance,both in formulating goals that are realistic and in aligning them, more orless, with curriculum and assessment expectations. Evidence reviewed byLocke and Latham (2002) suggests that goals set by or negotiated withothers can be accepted, and committed to, if their rationale is reasonableand is explained.

Regarding Zimmerman’s (2008) seventh criterion, there is someresearch evidence that supports encouraging a high degree of consciousawareness when moving towards achieving goals (Locke and Latham2002), but others argue for low levels of conscious awareness also beingeffective (Fitzsimons and Bargh 2004).

For the eighth criterion, Zimmerman (2008) reviews evidence as towhether process goals (e.g. developing expertise in structuring essays) aremore or less effective than performance goals (e.g. achieving a better gradein a test) in raising academic achievement. Zimmerman’s analysis revealshow complex such constructs are in practice. For example, there is in-teraction between other self-regulatory constructs, such as degree ofautomaticity (the extent to which elements of a task are carried outefficiently without conscious awareness) and the manner in whichstrategies are employed in a self-regulatory manner (for example, withself-monitoring by recording progress towards reaching goals). Indivi-duals are complex, with a cluster of psychological variables that interactwithin a social context. Making generalisations about whether toencourage process goals or performance goals may have limited utility,because an individual’s acceptance of one or the other approach dependson context and on a complex interplay of psychological factors within theindividual.

Investigators of achievement goal theory propose four kinds of goalorientation (Pintrich 2000; McGregor and Elliot 2002; Wolters 2004;Anderman and Wolters 2006). A student who is mastery-goal orientatedfocuses on mastering an academic task, making comparisons betweenpast and present performance in order to judge their success at a task.Those who are mastery-avoidance orientated focus on thwartingmisunderstanding and avoiding not learning as well as they might.Students who are performance-approach orientated seek to demonstratetheir prowess relative to others. Performance-avoidance orientatedstudents, on the other hand, wish to avoid being seen as incompetentor less able than their peers.

Some researchers (e.g. Midgeley et al. 1998, 2001; Wolters 2004;Anderman and Wolters 2006) also highlight the importance of theenvironmental context in which goals are set. A mastery-orientated goal

The Curriculum Journal 519

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

structure refers to a classroom environment that emphasises, throughpolicies and practices, the promotion of learning as being valuable for itsown sake, that effort to learn is important, that all students are valued,and that with appropriate effort all students can be successful at learning(Midgeley et al. 1998). A performance-orientated goal structure, on theother hand, refers to an environment that emphasises the importance ofcompetition, gaining high grades and demonstrating ability relative toothers. The mastery-orientated classroom culture largely accords withthat recommended by some leading proponents of ‘learning to learn’approaches (Watkins et al. 2001; Claxton 2006; Watkins and Lodge2007).

Interpreting the evidence for the efficacy of individual goal orienta-tions and particular classroom goal structures is challenging because ofnumerous confounding variables among research studies, includingdifferent timescales, the nature of examinations that serve as indicatorsof achievement, other aspects of the prevailing classroom culture, and soon. However, the weight of evidence suggests that positive orientations(orientations towards a goal) are predictors of achievement-relevantindicators such as self-reported effort and persistence (Pintrich 2000;McGregor and Elliot 2002) and are more likely to be associated withacademic achievement in terms of test results (Pintrich 2000). Thisassociation applies whether individuals are mastery- or performance-orientated types. Mastery- and performance-avoidance goals, on theother hand, were more likely to be associated with test anxiety, avoidingchallenges, not seeking help and poorer academic achievement. However,few researchers have been able to document a positive correlationbetween adopting mastery-orientated goals and academic achievement.This lack of support is an area of active investigation and theorising(Anderman and Wolters 2006). On the other hand, many (but not all)researchers have found a positive correlation between performance-orientated goal setting and academic achievement (e.g. reviews in Wolters2004; Anderman and Wolters 2006). As for performance-orientated andmastery-orientated classroom cultures, and associations between theseand academic achievement, the findings have been very mixed, with somesupport and refutation for both types of classroom culture (Wolters 2004;Anderman and Wolters 2006). Such mixed findings are a challenge to thepromotion of mastery-orientated classroom cultures as advocated bysome ‘learning to learn’ proponents (Watkins et al. 2001; Claxton 2006;Watkins and Lodge 2007).

In conclusion, Zimmerman’s (2008) review suggests eight criteria that,with varying degrees of theoretical and empirical support, might guide theappropriate use of goal setting in an educational context to encouragemotivation and achievement. To what extent are these criteria present ingoal-setting frameworks as employed in the classroom?

520 T. Day and P. Tosey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

An alternative to SMART

Analysing the use of SMART against Zimmerman’s (2008) eight criteriais problematic, because of both the variable nature of the SMARTconstruct and its manner of use (Wade 2009). Jones and Duckett (2004),for example, advocate using SMART targets as a way of achievinglonger-term goals, referring to evidence from case studies from furthereducation colleges in the Learning and Skills Development Agency’s‘Support for Success’ programme. They highlight tutors and learnersindependently preparing for one-to-one tutorials; the importance ofbuilding a positive climate in which tutorials take place; learners settingtheir own long-term goals, short-term targets and associated actionpoints, with suggestions from tutors; tutors being encouraged to listen tolearners; and agreements being made with an emphasis on students‘feeling good’ about the process. On the other hand, SMART targets canbe used in a more instrumental manner as part of normal classroompractice, with a greater emphasis on achievement for assessment(Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors 2010).

An alternative goal-setting and action-planning construct – the ‘well-formed outcome’ – has emerged from the field of neuro-linguisticprogramming (NLP) (Dilts and DeLozier 2000; Tosey and Mathison2003). As will be argued, the well-formed outcome appears to meetZimmerman’s criteria and has at least two further advantages over the useof SMART targets.

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a communication andpersonal development discipline that has evolved from the mid-1970s,with its origins in the work of John Grinder and Richard Bandler at theUniversity of California, Santa Cruz (Bandler and Grinder 1975a, 1975b;Grinder and Bandler 1976; Grinder et al. 1977). The rather mechanisticsounding term ‘neuro-linguistic programming’ reflects their backgrounds:Grinder as a researcher in linguistics and Bandler as a student ofmathematics and computing. ‘Neuro’ emphasises observable behaviour asa product of internal neurological (nervous system) processes, ‘linguistic’highlights how analysis of spoken language can be revealing of beliefs,intentions, motives and thought processes, while ‘programming’, drawingupon cybernetics and computing terminology, refers to how internalprocesses and external actions can be organised to produce results(Robbie 1988; Dilts and DeLozier 2000, 849–55).

According to Tosey and Mathison (2009), in its origins NLP wasinfluenced by intellectual developments and practices from the outcomesof the Macy Conferences, via the work of Gregory Bateson (e.g. Bateson1973), and the work of the Palo Alto Mental Research Institute (e.g.Watzlawick et al. 1967). Craft (2001) considers that NLP reflectsprimarily constructivist principles, in terms of learning theory, whileDay (2008) adds that NLP has behaviourist elements and is unusual

The Curriculum Journal 521

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

among classroom practices in being, in some circumstances, radicalconstructivist (von Glasersfeld 1995).

Since the 1970s, NLP has evolved to have many applications, indisciplines as diverse as accountancy and primary healthcare. Ineducation, the potential of NLP for use by teachers has been recognisedfor some time (Tosey and Mathison 2003, 2010). The applications of NLPin classroom learning are wide ranging, including: teachers bettermanaging their own emotional states; educators more effectively craftingtheir communications to match a learner’s preferences; and helpingstudents maintain resourceful learning states, encouraging their creativeproblem-solving and their ability to experience problems from differentpoints of view to better find solutions (e.g. Carey et al. 2009). NLPfeatures in classroom guides for teachers (e.g. Smith 1998; Ginnis 2002;Churches and Terry 2007; Mahony 2007) and is gaining wide currency,for example, through the ‘Fast Track’ teaching and leadershipprogramme (Churches and West-Burnham 2008).

One of the key constructs in NLP, developed from observation and thentested and fine-tuned in practice, is that of the well-formed outcome (Diltset al. 1980; Dilts and DeLozier 2000, 1548–50). Developers of NLP use theterm ‘outcome’ rather than target or goal. This linguistic distinction isintentional; it shifts the emphasis from looking to the future for somethingone wishes to achieve to the outcome being the unfolding of an action plan.

The term ‘well formed’ is influenced by Grinder’s academic back-ground in transformational linguistics, which at that time was concernedwith the ‘well formedness’ of linguistic constructions (Grinder and Elgin1973). As adopted in NLP, in relation to goal setting, outcomes areconsidered to be ‘well formed’ when they meet at least five criteria.Various formulations of, and acronyms for, these criteria are found inNLP practitioner sources (e.g. Dilts and DeLozier 2000). Here we adoptthe framework used by one of us (TD) in educational practice, whichemploys the mnemonic POWER to denote the following five elements.

P: The outcome is stated in the positive, as moving towards something thestudent wishes to have, rather than as moving away from something thestudent does not wish to have. This is based on the premise that thinkingabout what one does not wish to have will automatically bring theunwanted state to mind, rather than the ‘wished for’ state. So, for example,rather than saying the negative form ‘I don’t want to be stressed andconfused at the beginning of the exam’, the positive form might be ‘I wantto be calm and clear headed at the beginning of the exam’, so evoking thestate the student seeks to achieve, not the one they wish to leave behind.

O: The student’s own role in making the outcome happen. The outcomeneeds to be something that the student makes happen as a result of their

522 T. Day and P. Tosey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

own actions, rather than being dependent solely or largely on theactivities of others. For example, if preparing for an examination, theyneed to state the outcome in terms of what they will do, rather than whatthey might expect the teacher or other people to do (although theirstrategy might involve actions to help enlist the support of other people).

W: What specifically? This includes the student making an assessment oftheir starting point and their own (and others’) actions as the studentmoves toward the outcome, plus the resources (time, physical resourcesand so on) that are likely to be required in order to do so.

E: What evidence will the student have that reveals that they are makingprogress towards their outcome, and then that they have achieved it?NLP is concerned with sensory-based evidence. What might the studentsee, hear, feel, taste or smell to know that they are reaching theiroutcome? This element of the POWER heuristic can be highly effective atencouraging the individual to rehearse mentally the experience of movingtowards their outcome, and finally achieving it. For example, if they wereconsidering preparing for an exam, what sensory-based evidence wouldreveal that they were being successful? Visual evidence might be theexistence of a tidy desktop, annotations around their class notes, practicequestions they had answered and had marked, and so on. Kinaestheticevidence (concerning feelings and emotions) might be sensations of well-being and calmness, expressed in sensory-specific terms. Such mentalrehearsal can evoke sensory impressions that are more powerfullymotivating than detached, abstract notions of ‘what it takes to succeed’expressed in more conventional terms.

R: The fifth element of the well-formed outcome refers to relationshipand entails what is called in NLP an ‘ecology’ check. ‘Ecology’ hererefers, in the personal domain, to the effect that moving towardsreaching an outcome has on the student’s relationship with other peopleand, indeed, the relationship between different ‘parts’ of the student’sown psyche. Having set an outcome, the student is encouraged to makean ‘internal check’ that the decision ‘feels right’. Careful exploration ofany uncomfortable feelings or confused thoughts often reveals factorsthat might prevent them from achieving their outcome. Such factorscould include other demands on their time (such as part-time paid work)or conflicts that might arise if seeking to achieve their outcome runscounter to expectations of their family or peers. Awareness of suchbarriers presents an opportunity for creative problem-solving andperhaps readjustment of intended outcomes. At the very least, it revealsissues that would have sabotaged the student achieving their outcomesin any case.

The Curriculum Journal 523

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

The outcome needs to be sufficiently significant so as to be motivatingbut not so large as to be overwhelming. Such a balance accords withrecommended practice in setting targets with students; targets should berealistic yet stretch the student so that he or she can achieve what waspreviously just out of reach (Flecknoe 2001; Martinez 2001).

There is some research evidence in favour of well-formed outcomes.Researchers at the Yale Child Study Center regarded using well-formedoutcomes with students, and nurturing their ‘future orientation’ (apositive attitude about themselves as successful learners and ascontributing members of society), as key elements in a well-roundedsocial and emotional development programme (Ben-Avie et al. 2003).They associated these two practices with helping to enhance maths andscience scores among middle school students.

Well-formed outcomes in the light of goal-setting theory and research

The well-formed outcomes framework, with its emphasis on positiveorientation, accords well with the empirical findings of achievement goalresearch reviewed above, which suggest that ‘orientation towards’ goals arepreferable to ‘avoidance’ goals, regardless of whether they are mastery- orperformance-orientated goals. Regarding distinctions between mastery andperformance orientations, as with Zimmerman’s (2008) eighth criterion forsetting goals, it seems likely that the context in which goals are set, and theinterpretation by an individual as to whether a goal is mastery orperformance orientated within their cluster of personal constructs, confoundthe search for obvious associations. Indeed, it is likely that both mastery andperformance orientations exist at one and the same time, in individuals and inclassroom cultures (Pintrich 2000; McGregor and Elliot 2002).

The well-formed outcomes framework appears to meet at least four ofZimmerman’s first six criteria (specific, congruent, challenging and self-generated), and encourages the other two (proximity in time and beinghierarchical) through the ‘nesting’ or hierarchical arrangement ofoutcomes over different timescales. For Zimmerman’s seventh criterion(degree of conscious awareness), NLP practitioners acknowledge thepower of automaticity and consider that setting well-formed outcomesoperates on both conscious and unconscious levels. For Zimmerman’seighth criterion, depending on an individual’s preferences, well-formedoutcomes could be either process or performance goals.

An additional feature of NLP’s well-formed outcomes is theincorporation of sensory-rich mental rehearsal. There is evidence fromsport and other performance activities that positive mental rehearsal hasdemonstrable effects on enhancing performance (Woolfolk et al. 1985;Suinn 1997; Nordin and Cumming 2005). In sport, mental rehearsal iscommonly called ‘mental imagery’ although it goes well beyond

524 T. Day and P. Tosey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

visualisation alone, being multi-sensory and often accompanied byactivities such as self-talk and practised relaxation (Suinn 1997; Hale1998; Holmes and Collins 2001; Hale et al. 2005). Any and all suchelements can also apply in the use of mental rehearsal as employed byNLP practitioners. Hale defines mental imagery as ‘a method of using allthe senses to create or re-create an experience in the mind’ (1998, 4). It caninvolve five primary senses – sight, sound, touch, smell and taste – as wellas actions, thoughts, feelings and emotions.

The intention of mental rehearsal is to create, or re-create, key aspectsof a mental/physical performance. Doing so, in a structured manner, hasmany potential benefits. It is likely to encourage the internalisation ofextrinsic motivation (engaging in an activity for reasons other than it beinginherently interesting or enjoyable). Such internalisation is associated witha greater likelihood of the student feeling in control and having a sense ofownership in achieving the outcome (Ryan and Deci 2000).

Mental rehearsal has long been a key element employed by successfulOlympic teams (Suinn 1997). The benefits of mental rehearsal extendbeyond physical skill and performance per se, but include qualities suchas strengthening commitment, confidence and concentration, andenhancing the ability to control one’s emotional state beneficially (Hale1998; Hale et al. 2005). Such attributes clearly have relevance to learningin the classroom and elsewhere, not just applied to performance in sport.

A formal, analytical comparison between POWER and SMART isproblematic because the SMART framework is variable in both itsconstruct and its use (see, for example, Wade 2009). However, ourdiscussion suggests that the construct of well-formed outcomes has astronger and more explicit correspondence with current evidence andrecommended practice emerging from theorising and research on self-regulated learning, achievement goal theory and mental rehearsal.

The outcome-setting framework encourages personal exploration ofthoughts and feelings. The construct of well-formed outcomes contains twokey elements that can contribute to better target setting and action planning;namely, the encouragement of mental rehearsal, with an emphasis onsensory-based evidence in doing so, and an ‘ecology’ check on the likelihoodof a given outcome being achievable. Target or goal setting using theSMART framework (specific, measurable, achievable or agreed-upon,realistic and time-based) could involve the exploration of potential obstacles(as in the ‘ecology’ check), and could explore feelings and emotions, but inmany cases it does not (Blandford 1997; Flecknoe 2001; Martinez 2001).

A practice-based vignette

This article focuses on learning targets and action planning, and theirnegotiation by student and teacher/tutor. Of course, such practice cannot

The Curriculum Journal 525

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

be separated from the wider context of the learning culture in which ittakes place, the power relationship between the two participants, and thenature of the learning contract between them. NLP favours a ‘co-learner’contract between student and teacher, which aligns well with itsfundamentally radical constructivist nature. In its purest form, the well-formed outcomes framework has the student devising his or her owngoals or targets. The reality in a secondary school or further educationcontext is that this needs to be done within the context of priorities set bythe curriculum and in relation to forms of assessment. Nevertheless,students’ concerns are a good starting point, particularly if students are tobe genuinely empowered and their learning is to be personalised.

A vignette is provided to show how the POWER model can be appliedin context. The vignette is an idealised account based on the actual statedoutcome of a female Year 12 AS level biology student. The outcome wascaptured as part of mixed-methods classroom research carried out by oneof the authors with two AS level classes in a 13–18 mixed-gender collegein the UK (Day 2008). The author was not the student’s biology tutor, hedid not conduct a tutorial with this particular student, nor is the vignettebased on records from an actual tutorial with that student. Rather, thevignette is an idealised account of how such a tutorial might be run basedon best practice from that author’s more than eight years’ experience as abiology tutor using the well-formed outcomes framework with sixth formstudents and with mature students on a university open-access course.The student’s outcome was set in March prior to the student taking ASlevel examinations in June. Typically, the biology tutor would be expectedto see the student at least once more, several weeks before theexamination, at a further tutorial meeting to discuss the student’sprogress towards the outcome (although the tutor might also discuss theoutcome with the student one to one, informally, during class activities).

The student comes to a meeting with her biology tutor bringing thefollowing outcome (one of three she has set for herself this term, and theone she has prioritised for this meeting): ‘My outcome is feeling confidententering the exam room, knowing I have revised as well as I can toachieve the highest grade I can realistically achieve.’

This outcome meets the first two POWER criteria: it is statedpositively and the student’s own role is clearly indicated. The next part ofthe one-to-one interaction considers the evidence that the student willexperience to know that she has met her outcome (note: the elements ofthe POWER model do not have to follow the order indicated by themnemonic, provided the first two criteria are met). The student describesthe thoughts and feelings she will experience when she meets her outcome.What does that feel like? What thoughts are going through her head?What is she saying to herself? What does she see and hear in hersurroundings? This rich description of the experience of meeting the

526 T. Day and P. Tosey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

outcome is key to encouraging effective mental rehearsal. It is likely toinvolve descriptions of ‘internal’ experience but might include ‘external’impressions as well. As well as the description of the experience onentering the exam room, it might involve her describing the experience ofreading the question paper and beginning to write the answers, and/orhow it feels when she finally reads the printout that shows the exam gradeshe has achieved. In completing this part of the process the studentusually becomes energised, having practised what it is like to experienceher intended outcome.

Now the student considers the ‘Relationship’ part of the modelthrough her response to a question such as: ‘If you could have thisoutcome, would you take it?’ The teacher looks for signs of incongruence,in case the student is not wholeheartedly behind gaining her outcome.Incongruence can be indicated by a sudden shift in body language, orverbal signals/signs such as sighing, which may indicate a change frompositive to uncertain. Gently exploring what lies behind such a shift islikely to reveal issues that might prevent the student from reaching heroutcome. Dealing with such issues may move the dialogue seamlessly intothe ‘What specifically’ part of the POWER model. Another possibility isthat the intended outcome was unrealistic, and that the student needs totemper her high expectations. It could be that the student finds she needsto rephrase her outcome, fine-tuning the original one, or perhaps splittingit into two or more new outcomes of smaller size. The above student’sintended outcome is large and, through questioning and discussion, itwould be broken down into smaller outcomes and associated actions overdifferent timescales.

There can be value in exploring the ‘Relationship’ part of the modelbefore moving on to the ‘What specifically’. Doing so can prevent wastingtime on an outcome that is not highly motivating or is based on wishfulthinking and is unrealistic. Whether the ‘What specifically’ comes after orbefore the ‘Relationship’ check, the ‘What specifically’ is powered by theexperience of the earlier mental rehearsal in meeting the outcome. The‘What specifically’ is the detailed action-planning stage. It is studentfocused – hence personalised – and is informed by all the stages that havecome before. For a student engaged in revision and exam preparation, the‘What specifically’ can be wide-ranging, including elements such aschoosing and creating an appropriate work environment, planning thebest times of day to revise, checking progress, enlisting the help of othersand so on, as well as specific revision strategies aligned with subjectmatter, forms of assessment and an individual’s learning preferences.Specifics can be revealed by highlighting key elements of the student’sstated outcome, much as they might do in responding to an essay title:‘My outcome is to feel confident entering the exam room, knowing I haverevised as well as I can to achieve the highest grade I can realistically

The Curriculum Journal 527

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

achieve.’ Questions such as: ‘What would you need to do beforehand to feelconfident as you entered the exam room?’, ‘How would you know you hadrevised as well as you could?’, ‘What exam grade do you think you canrealistically achieve?’ reveal the specific requirements for moving forwardto meet the outcome and act as a check on how realistic it is to do so.

Goal setting and action planning using NLP’s well-formed outcomesframework can be carried out deftly, taking perhaps 15 minutes with agiven student for a large outcome. The value in doing so is great if itincreases the likelihood of the student achieving their self-set ornegotiated learning outcome.

Using well-formed outcomes in practice: further considerations

Two key concerns teachers/tutors might have about the use of well-formed outcomes are: Do I have the time for this? And aren’t we gettinginto feelings and emotional territory which I’m ill equipped to deal with?

In answer to the first question, assuming that setting learning targets isa priority, and that time is properly allocated for this one-to-one process,then incorporating well-formed outcome concepts should not undulylengthen the process. Like developing any new capability, incorporatingwell-formedness criteria may be time-consuming initially but can soon beintegrated into practice. The potential benefits of doing so are that thestudent becomes more strongly engaged in the target-setting and action-planning process, and the target becomes more realisable, or is modifiedto make it more realisable.

In answer to the second question, if affective aspects are important inthe student’s learning it seems reasonable to suppose that they should bereflected in the target-setting and action-planning processes. At such timesthe focus of the staff–student interaction is on practical issues. The staffmember is not expected to be an emotional counsellor, trained to deal witha student’s deep distress and equipped to help them explore deep-seatedemotional issues. If a student’s personal issue is impacting on theirlearning and well-being, then it seems reasonable that the teacher/tutorshould at least be aware that this lies in the background. It does not meanthat the staff member is personally responsible for resolving the issue, orknowing specifically what it is. At the very least, the teacher/tutor canencourage and support the student to seek and gain assistance elsewhere.In any case, failing to deal with, or at least acknowledging, an underlyingissue may undermine the target-setting and action-planning processes.

As we have seen, the POWER framework for outcome setting isintended to be part of a negotiated dialogue between student and staffmember that assists the student to define learning goals and movetowards achieving them. It complements, and can be integrated into,other established frameworks for doing so, such as the GROW model1

528 T. Day and P. Tosey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

used in coaching, developed by Whitmore (1996), which is currentlyadvocated by the Centre for the Use of Research and Evidence inEducation (CUREE 2010) and used with both students and staff in someschools. Churches and Terry (2007) recommend employing an NLP-influenced SMART framework (specific, with milestones, framed ‘ashappening now’, results orientated with an emphasis on sensory-basedevidence, and time-based), with the addition of further NLP elementsusing the mnemonic PURE (the outcome is positively framed, under theindividual’s control, of the right size, and ecological).

Setting an outcome and planning action to achieve it are worth littleunless progress towards the outcome is monitored (by the studentthemselves and the staff member) and feedback is given and acted upon.Here again, NLP offers a useful framework – the ‘three steps to success’model (Day 2008) – as depicted in Figure 1.

Using the ‘three steps to success’ framework, setting a well-formedoutcome can be likened to steering a course in a sailing vessel. Adestination is decided upon and a course towards it set, but wind,weather, ocean currents and other factors affect progress. At regularintervals the wise navigator takes stock of the location, considers howthey wish to proceed, and whether or not they still intend to steer to theoriginal destination or decide on another one. It is the same with outcomesetting. Seen this way, well-formed outcomes are provisional.

Applying the ‘three steps to success’ framework, a well-formedoutcome is set (step one). In moving towards their outcome the studentbecomes aware of feedback (from their teacher, other people thatinfluence their progression towards the outcome, their own reactions towhat is happening, and so on). Sensory acuity (step two) is concernedwith heightened awareness of feedback, both internal (within theindividual) and external (from the individual’s environment, especiallyother people). Is the feedback supporting the student’s movementtowards their outcome, or is it suggesting some reappraisal of the

Figure 1. The ‘three steps to success’ framework (Day 2008).

The Curriculum Journal 529

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

outcome or the strategy for moving towards it? In progressing towardsthe outcome, flexibility of action (step three) in response to feedback isoften crucial to success. The student may find that they need to alter theirbehaviour to achieve their outcome, or they might modify their outcome.The return arrows (feedback loops) in Figure 1 acknowledge thatawareness and actions from later steps feed forward to earlier steps,informing them and perhaps resulting in them being adjusted.

This ‘three steps to success’ model aligns with learning cycleframeworks suggested by experiential learning proponents, such as‘plan, act, review and apply’ (Kolb 1984; Gibbs 1988) or ‘do, review,learn and apply’ (Dennison and Kirk 1990). Such reflective and action-planning practice is encouraged by researchers and teacher developers asappropriate for use by teachers and personal tutors when working withstudents (Bullock and Wikeley 2004; Watkins and Lodge 2007).

Conclusion

Despite the prominence of the use of learning goals or targets withstudents in secondary and further education, such as employed in personaldevelopment plans (PDPs) and personal learning plans (PLPs), anddespite relevance to the personalisation agenda, there is a dearth of recentreported research on the conceptual robustness or effectiveness of heuristicgoal-setting devices such as SMART. This article has reviewed relevanttheory and research, highlighting Zimmerman’s (2008) eight criteria. It haspresented ‘well-formed outcomes’ as a framework that may have thepotential to offer a more rigorous, holistic and research-informedapproach to target or goal setting and action planning than SMARTtargets, given its more explicit fit with Zimmerman’s criteria. Using well-formed outcomes gives the learner the opportunity to choose (or at least tonegotiate) their own outcomes, check how realistic they are, and throughmental rehearsal harness sensory-based evidence along the path toreaching them. Given the lack of recent empirical work on commongoal-setting practices in the classroom, and evaluation of their effective-ness, it is pertinent to underline the need for further research in these areas.

Acknowledgements

TD wishes to acknowledge the support and encouragement of KateBullock, Paul Denley and John Seymour. Both authors thank MaryDeane for commenting on a draft of the manuscript. Part of the articledraws substantially upon the original critical analysis of the literature onwell-formed outcomes in TD’s PhD thesis for the University of Bath(2008), ‘A study of a small-scale classroom intervention that uses anadapted neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) modelling approach’.

530 T. Day and P. Tosey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

Note

1. The GROW acronym stands for G (establishing the goal), R (examining the currentreality of the situation), O (considering the available options) and W (confirming thewill to act and deciding what action to take).

Notes on contributors

Trevor Day is an Academic Writing Consultant at the University of Bath. He has many years’experience of teaching at secondary, FE and HE levels in the UK. He holds a PhD ineducation, a secondary/FE teaching qualification (PGCE) and is a Master Practitioner ofneuro-linguistic-programming (NLP). His current research interests include: exploringstudents’ experiences and perceptions of their writing development and interpreting themthrough academic literacies and self-regulation theories; and the application of NLP in theteaching and learning of academic writing.

Paul Tosey, PhD (Bath) is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Management, University ofSurrey. He has led a national project on ‘Enquiry-based Learning in Higher Education’, andwas awarded a National Teaching Fellowship by the Higher Education Academy in 2007. Hisresearch interests include organisational learning, transformative learning, especially throughcoaching, and innovations in phenomenological research methods. He is a Master Practitionerof NLP (1992), and his book A Critical Appreciation of NLP (2009, co-author Dr JaneMathison) is published by Palgrave Macmillan.

References

Anderman, E.M., and C.A. Wolters. 2006. Goals, values and affect: Influences on studentmotivation. In Handbook of educational psychology, 2nd ed., ed. P.A. Alexander andP.H. Winne, 369–89. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bandler, R., and J. Grinder. 1975a. The structure of magic, vol. I: A book about languageand therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behaviour Books.

Bandler, R., and J. Grinder. 1975b. Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H.Erickson, MD. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.

Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Bateson, G. 1973. Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology,

psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. London: Paladin, Granada.Ben-Avie, M., N.M. Haynes, J. White, J. Ensign, T.R. Steinfeld, L.D. Sartin, and D.A.

Squires. 2003. Youth development and student learning in math and science. In Howsocial and emotional development add up: Getting results in math and science education,ed. H.M. Haynes, M. Ensign, and J. Ensign, 9–35. New York: Teachers College Press.

Blakemore, S.-J., and U. Frith. 2005. The learning brain. Oxford: Blackwell.Blandford, S. 1997. Middle management in schools. London: Financial Times.Broadfoot, P. 1988. Records of achievement: Report of the national evaluation of pilot

schemes. London: HMSO.Bullock, K., A. Harris, and I. Jamieson. 1996. Personal development plans and equal

opportunities. Educational Research 38, no. 1: 21–35.Bullock, K., and I. Jamieson. 1995. The effect of personal development planning on

attitudes, behaviour and understanding. Educational Studies 21, no. 3: 307–21.Bullock, K., and I. Jamieson. 1998. The effectiveness of personal development planning.

The Curriculum Journal 9, no. 1: 63–77.Bullock, K., and F. Wikeley. 1999. Improving learning in Year 9: Making use of personal

learning plans. Educational Studies 25, no. 1: 19–33.Bullock, K., and F. Wikeley. 2004. Whose learning? The role of the personal tutor.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

The Curriculum Journal 531

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

Bullock, K., and F. Wikeley. 2008. Every child should have one: What it means to be alearning guide. Improving Schools 11, no. 1: 49–60.

Carey, J., R. Churches, G. Hutchinson, J. Jones, and P. Tosey. 2009. Neuro-linguisticprogramming and learning: Teacher case studies on the impact of NLP in education.Reading: CfBT Education Trust. http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/pdf/5.NLP_(40pp)_FINAL(W).pdf (accessed June 7, 2010).

Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors. 2010. Target setting. Coventry:The Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors. http://www.ciea.org.uk/student_member_area/resources/first_steps_in_assessment/target_setting.aspx (accessed July 12,2010).

Churches, R., and R. Terry. 2007. NLP for teachers: How to be a highly effective teacher.Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.

Churches, R., and J. West-Burnham. 2008. Leading learning through relationships: Theimplications of neuro-linguistic programming for personalisation and the children’sagenda in England. Paper presented at the First International Neuro-LinguisticProgramming Research Conference, July 5, at the School of Management, Universityof Surrey, Guildford, UK.

Claxton, G. 1999. Wise-up: The challenge of lifelong learning. New York: Bloomsbury.Claxton, G. 2005. The wayward mind. London: Little, Brown.Claxton, G. 2006. Learning to learn: The fourth generation – making sense of personalised

learning. Bristol: TLO.Craft, A. 2001. Neuro-linguistic programming and learning theory. The Curriculum

Journal 12, no. 1: 125–36.CUREE. 2010. Other mentoring and coaching resources. Coventry: Centre for the Use

of Research and Evidence in Education. http://www.curee-paccts.com/mentoring-and-coaching/other-mentoring-and-coaching-resources (accessed March 30, 2010).

Day, T.R. 2008. A study of a small-scale classroom intervention that uses an adaptedneuro-linguistic programming (NLP) modelling approach. PhD thesis, Departmentof Education, University of Bath.

Deci, E.L., and R.M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum.

Dennison, B., and R. Kirk. 1990. Do, review, learn, apply: A simple guide to experientiallearning. Oxford: Blackwell.

Department for Children, Schools and Families. 2008. Personalised learning – A practicalguide. Annesley, Nottingham: DCSF Publications.

Dilts, R., and J. DeLozier. 2000. Encyclopedia of systemic NLP and NLP new coding.Scotts Valley, CA: NLP University Press.

Dilts, R., J. Grinder, R. Bandler, and J. DeLozier. 1980. Neuro-linguistic programming,vol. 1: The study of the structure of subjective experience. Cupertino, CA: MetaPublications.

Doran, G.T. 1981. There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals andobjectives. Management Review 70, no. 11: 35–6.

Drucker, P.F. 1954. The practice of management. New York: Harper Brothers.Fielding, M. 1999. Target setting, policy pathology and student perspectives: Learning to

labour in new times. Cambridge Journal of Education 29, no. 2: 277–87.Fitzsimons, G.M., and J.A. Bargh. 2004. Automatic self-regulation. In Handbook of self-

regulation: Research, theory, and applications, ed. R.F. Baumeister and K.D. Vohs,151–70. New York: Guilford Press.

Flecknoe, M. 2001. Target setting: Will it help to raise achievement? EducationalManagement, Administration and Leadership 29, no. 2: 217–28.

Gibbs, G. 1988. Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. London:Further Education Unit.

Ginnis, P. 2002. The teacher’s toolkit. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.Grinder, J., and R. Bandler. 1976. The structure of magic. Vol. II. Palo Alto, CA: Science

and Behaviour Books.Grinder, J., J. DeLozier, and R. Bandler. 1977. Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of

Milton H. Erickson, MD. Vol. II. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.

532 T. Day and P. Tosey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

Grinder, J., and S. Elgin. 1973. A guide to transformational grammar. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Hale, B.D. 1998. Imagery training: A guide for sports coaches and performers. Leeds:National Coaching Foundation.

Hale, B.D., L. Seiser, E.J. McGuire, and E. Weinrich. 2005. Mental imagery. In Applyingsport psychology: Four perspectives, ed. J. Taylor, J. Wilson, and G.S. Wilson, 117–35.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Holmes, P.S., and D.J. Collins. 2001. The PETTLEP approach to motor imagery: Afunctional equivalence model for sport psychologists. Journal of Applied SportPsychology 13, no. 1: 60–83.

James, M., P. Black, R. McCormick, D. Pedder, and D. Wiliam. 2006. Learning how tolearn, in classrooms, schools and networks: Aims, design and analysis. ResearchPapers in Education 21, no. 2: 101–8.

Jones, C.A., and I. Duckett. 2004. Tutorials and target setting in the effective delivery ofvocational A levels. London: Learning and Skills Network.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E.A., and G.P. Latham. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal settingand task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist 57, no. 9: 705–17.

Mahony, T. 2007. Making your words work: Using NLP to improve communication,learning and behaviour. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.

Martinez, P. 2001. Great expectations: Setting targets for students. London: Learning andSkills Development Agency.

McGregor, H.A., and A.J. Elliot. 2002. Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology 94,no. 2: 381–95.

McNeil, F. 2009. Learning with the brain in mind. London: Sage.Merson, M. 1992. The four ages of TVEI: A review of policy. British Journal of Education

and Work 5, no. 2: 5–18.Midgley, C., A. Kaplan, M. Middleton, M.L. Maehr, T. Urdan, L.H. Anderman, E.

Anderman, and R. Roeser. 1998. The development and validation of scales assessingstudents’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology 23,no. 2: 113–31.

Midgley, C., A. Kaplan, and M. Middleton. 2001. Performance-approach goals: Goodfor what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal ofEducational Psychology 93, no. 1: 77–86.

Murayama, K., and A.J. Elliot. 2009. The joint influence of personal achievement goalsand classroom goal structures on achievement-relevant outcomes. Journal ofEducational Psychology 101, no. 2: 432–47.

Nordin, S.M., and J. Cumming. 2005. More than meets the eye: Investigating imagerytype, direction, and outcome. The Sport Psychologist 19: 1–17.

Oxford English Dictionary. 1989, 2010. Oxford English Dictionary2nd ed. (on-line).Oxford: Clarendon Press. http://www.oed.com:80/Entry/79557 (accessed December19, 2010).

Pintrich, P. 2000. Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation inlearning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 92, no. 3: 544–55.

Posner, M., and M.K. Rothbart. 2007. Educating the human brain. New York: AmericanPsychological Association.

Raia, A.P. 1965. Goal setting and self-control: An empirical study. Journal ofManagement Studies 2, no. 1: 34–53.

Robbie, E. 1988. Neuro-linguistic programming. In Innovative therapy in Britain, ed. J.Rowan and W. Dryden, 251–79. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Ryan, R.M., and E.L. Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitionsand new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, no. 1: 54–67.

Schunk, D.H. 1989. Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In Self-regulatedlearning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice, ed. B.J. Zimmer-man and D.H. Schunk, 83–110. New York: Springer-Verlag.

The Curriculum Journal 533

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4

Smith, A. 1998. Accelerated learning in practice. Stafford: Network Educational Press.Suinn, R.M. 1997. Mental practice in sport psychology: Where have we been, where do

we go? Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 4, no. 3: 189–207.Technical and Vocational Education Initiative. 1991. Flexible learning: A framework for

education and training in the skills decade. Sheffield: The Employment Department.Tosey, P., and J. Mathison. 2003. Neuro-linguistic programming and learning theory: A

response. The Curriculum Journal 14, no. 3: 371–88.Tosey, P., and J. Mathison. 2009. NLP: A critical appreciation for managers and

developers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Tosey, P., and J. Mathison. 2010. Neuro-linguistic programming as an innovation in

education and teaching. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 47, no. 3:317–26.

von Glasersfeld, E. 1995. Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London:Falmer Press.

Wade, D.T. 2009. Goal setting in rehabilitation: An overview of what, why and how.Clinical Rehabilitation 23, no. 4: 291–5.

Watkins, C., with E. Carnell, C. Lodge, P. Wagner, and C. Whalley. 2001. Learningabout learning enhances performance. School Improvement Network ResearchMatters 13. London: University of London, Institute of Education.

Watkins, C., and C. Lodge. 2007. Effective learning in classrooms. London: PaulChapman.

Watts, A. 1992. Individual action planning: Issues and strategies. British Journal ofEducation and Work 5, no. 1: 47–64.

Watts, A. 1993. Developing individual action-planning skills. British Journal of Educationand Work 7, no. 2: 51–62.

Watzlawick, P., J.H. Beavin, and D.D. Jackson. 1967. Pragmatics of human communica-tion. New York: W.W. Norton.

Whiteside, T. 1994. Tutoring and guidance post-16: The students’ view. The CurriculumJournal 5, no. 3: 381–91.

Whitmore, J. 1996. Coaching for performance: Growing people, performance and purpose.London: Nicholas Brealey.

Wolters, C.A. 2004. Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goalorientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal ofEducational Psychology 96, no. 2: 236–50.

Woolfolk, R.L., M.W. Parrish, and S.M. Murphy. 1985. The effects of positive andnegative imagery on motor skill performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research 9, no.3: 335–41.

Zimmerman, B.J. 2008. Goal setting: A key proactive source of academic self-regulation.In Motivation and self-regulated learning, ed. D.H. Schunk and B.J. Zimmerman,267–95. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

534 T. Day and P. Tosey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

188.

77.5

0.87

] at

13:

11 2

6 M

arch

201

4